What if Carthage won the Punic Wars?

[The Nuclear Fist]

The Huns came out of the area around Kazakhstan, then went around the black sea and started attacking the Eastern Roman Empire.

Hmm. I was under the impression they were from somewhere in central Asia, around Kazakhstan/Mongolia/Northern China, and swept in through Eastern Europe, and then attacked Europe. Not that I don't believe you, but can you show me where you found out they were from Kazakhstan? I'm a big fan of the Huns (and Mongols) and I'd like to read up on their origins, which I thought were disputed.

[Phocidaea]

I dunno... we'd have the Phoenician Catholic Church?

[New England and The Maritimes]

The Huns came out of the area around Kazakhstan, then went around the black sea and started attacking the Eastern Roman Empire.

Hmm. I was under the impression they were from somewhere in central Asia, around Kazakhstan/Mongolia/Northern China, and swept in through Eastern Europe, and then attacked Europe. Not that I don't believe you, but can you show me where you found out they were from Kazakhstan? I'm a big fan of the Huns (and Mongols) and I'd like to read up on their origins, which I thought were disputed.

From what I've seen, the prevailing theory for a long long time is that the Huns of late Rome are the same people of middle China named the "Xiong-Nu".

[The Nuclear Fist]

Hmm. I was under the impression they were from somewhere in central Asia, around Kazakhstan/Mongolia/Northern China, and swept in through Eastern Europe, and then attacked Europe. Not that I don't believe you, but can you show me where you found out they were from Kazakhstan? I'm a big fan of the Huns (and Mongols) and I'd like to read up on their origins, which I thought were disputed.

From what I've seen, the prevailing theory for a long long time is that the Huns of late Rome are the same people of middle China named the "Xiong-Nu".

I was always under the impression that they have some sort of connection to the Mongols, perhaps being ancestors.

[Genocidonia]

I think that's a bit too far into the past to really find out what would happen. We can all find out what would happen if Hitler succesfully invaded Russia by thinking about it, you can't find out what would happen if Bismarck lost the Franco-Prussian war and Germany remained a patchwork of principalities.

We know that Carthage would have won if the italian allies switched their allegiances after Cannae, but what else? Would the fragile federation fall apart into feuding fiefs after the war? Would Carthage have expanded and become exactly like the Roman Empire?

This question is WAY to complex and will have to rely on a lot of "what ifs".

[New England and The Maritimes]

From what I've seen, the prevailing theory for a long long time is that the Huns of late Rome are the same people of middle China named the "Xiong-Nu".

I was always under the impression that they have some sort of connection to the Mongols, perhaps being ancestors.

Not any more than the magyars and the turks are, really. In that sense they're probably close but not in some immediate sense.

[Vetalia]

From what I've seen, the prevailing theory for a long long time is that the Huns of late Rome are the same people of middle China named the "Xiong-Nu".

I'm no expert on Classical Chinese phonology given how much it's changed but using modern pronunciations it's not too hard to see how "Xiongnu" became "Hun".

[New England and The Maritimes]

From what I've seen, the prevailing theory for a long long time is that the Huns of late Rome are the same people of middle China named the "Xiong-Nu".

I'm no expert on Classical Chinese phonology given how much it's changed but using modern pronunciations it's not too hard to see how "Xiongnu" became "Hun".

Chunnu turns to Chunnoi turns to Hunni as they move west.

[Pope Joan]

The territory of Carthage would not have been sown with salt, which would have left that region much better off than it ever was thereafter.

[Nazis in Space]

Hmm. I was under the impression they were from somewhere in central Asia, around Kazakhstan/Mongolia/Northern China, and swept in through Eastern Europe, and then attacked Europe. Not that I don't believe you, but can you show me where you found out they were from Kazakhstan? I'm a big fan of the Huns (and Mongols) and I'd like to read up on their origins, which I thought were disputed.

From what I've seen, the prevailing theory for a long long time is that the Huns of late Rome are the same people of middle China named the "Xiong-Nu".

Was. Past tense. That hypothesis is largely the product of a romanticised view on history with, well, continuity porn, and is essentially rejected by contemporary historians.

The immense amount of time involved, which requires the relevant part of the Xiong-Nu to randomly vanish for a few hundred years (Despite the history of central asia being reasonably covered by Chinese, Persian, and Greek sources), and the ethnic flux typical for the area, with different entities constantly merging and splitting and so on makes a continuous existence of a politically distinct Xiong-Nu/ Hunnic ethnicity immensely unlikely, and pretty much evidence-free.

It's certainly possible that a few groups of the historical Xiong-Nu split off, went westwards, and were absorbed by the nomadic populations there. But that's pretty much it.

[Cameroi]

What if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, took over the Roman Republic, then dominated the Mediterranean?

How would culture, religion, warfare and history itself be affected?

Would it dominate the lands Rome would in the future, or would it expand it's influence beyond?

Discuss.

the middle ages would have been shorter. that could mean less of the delay in scientific and technologcial development caused by them. "could". not claiming certainty here. but IF that, then we could very well have perminent colonies on mars and the moon by now, and sending manned missions beyond our solar system.

[Xathranaar]

Signatures on NSG would say, "furthermore, Rome must be destroyed."

[Nazis in Space]

What if Carthage had won the Punic Wars, took over the Roman Republic, then dominated the Mediterranean?

How would culture, religion, warfare and history itself be affected?

Would it dominate the lands Rome would in the future, or would it expand it's influence beyond?

Discuss.

the middle ages would have been shorter. that could mean less of the delay in scientific and technologcial development caused by them. "could". not claiming certainty here. but IF that, then we could very well have perminent colonies on mars and the moon by now, and sending manned missions beyond our solar system.

Only white people can advance science.

FACT!

[Ostroeuropa]

the middle ages would have been shorter. that could mean less of the delay in scientific and technologcial development caused by them. "could". not claiming certainty here. but IF that, then we could very well have perminent colonies on mars and the moon by now, and sending manned missions beyond our solar system.

Only white people can advance science.

FACT!

Carthaginians are semetic.
Basically arabs without arabic script or culture.

[Nazis in Space]

Only white people can advance science.

FACT!

Carthaginians are semetic.
Basically arabs without arabic script or culture.

Look above you.

Yes, straight over your head.

See that point?

[Ostroeuropa]

Carthaginians are semetic.
Basically arabs without arabic script or culture.

Look above you.

Yes, straight over your head.

See that point?

Yeh...?
He's essentially arguing that Arab science would have boosted us to the moon by now
He's wrong for the reasons you are trying to point out, which is that the rest of the world didn't suffer the "Dark ages."
But he isn't wrong because WHITE people.
He's saying there wouldn't be a dark age because ARABS wouldn't have had a dark age

[Nazis in Space]

I sincerely doubt that the Carthaginians would've been able to replace native populations in Europe. The scenario isn't 'All Euro-whites vanish and are replaced by semites', the scenario is 'Phoenician culture replaces roman culture, which does SOMETHING which shortens the western european middle age, which means MOAR SCIENCE.

Still white people science. Just with a little more semitic heritage than they already have, anyway.

[Costa Alegria]

Elephants would replace horses. Races would require larger tracks. There'd be a lot more poop.

I can't imagine what the Charge of the Light Brigade would have been like with elephants.

[Forsher]

Elephants would replace horses. Races would require larger tracks. There'd be a lot more poop.

I can't imagine what the Charge of the Light Brigade would have been like with elephants.

Slower and, to tell the truth, they'd probably have needed to be mammoths.

[The Archregimancy]

Only white people can advance science.

FACT!

Carthaginians are semetic.
Basically arabs without arabic script or culture.

This is your most bizarre statement in this thread yet.

Carthaginian Punic as a language was dialect of Phoenecian, itself a member of the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family. However, its closest living relatives are Hebrew and Aramaic, not Arabic - though all four languages are reasonably closely related. On linguistic relationships, you'd be better off calling them 'basically Jews without Hebrew script or the Jewish religion'; still misguided, but considerably more accurate on the basis of both linguistic and geographical proximity. It would be most accurate to describe them as the descendents of Phoenicians who established trading colonies along the North African coast.

To automatically call speakers of a Semitic language 'basically Arabs without Arabic script or culture' is anachronistic and historically and archaeologically ill-informed. Egyptians, Assyrians, the Jews of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Babylonians, and Akkadians all spoke Semitic languages - and had far more reason to be considered monoethnic 'Semites' than the Carthaginians, but I don't think anyone would rationally call any of them 'basically Arabs without Arabic script or culture'. There were no Arabs in North Africa for more than 800 years after the Second Punic War, so it's a highly misleading and anachronistic comparison, even to make a humorous rhetorical point about dark-skinned people and science. It's also an incorrect rhetorical point given the relationship to Hebrews, who - in common modern stereotypes - aren't usually considered averse to the glories of Western science.

The ethnicity of Carthaginians - as opposed to their language, and the two are not identical - is in any case a hotly disputed topic that's often oddly appropriated by white supremacists (I stress I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of the latter, merely noting a point of fact). However, it's a topic I've written on previously in NSG, so I'll save time and just quote myself (using the box function rather than the quote function to preserve some earlier quote pyramids).

Answering this question is particularly tricky given the almost total absence of primary documentation written by the Carthaginians themselves. Almost all of the relevant surviving historical documentation was written by Carthage's enemies.

Traditionally, Carthage was founded around 650 BC by Phoenician settlers from the Middle East. However, very few of the Phoenician colonies grew into large cities; Carthage was the exception here rather than the rule. We'll never know for certain why Carthage grew into a large city. However, it's worth noting that Carthage's period of territorial expansion seems to coincide with attacks on the original Punic cities on the Levantine coast by the Babylonian and Persian Empires. It seems possible that Carthage's growth came about through a combination of its strategic position along Mediterranean trade routes (though this position was not unique) and the arrival of Phoenician refugees from the original homeland (with which Carthage had maintained links).

From what we can parse from the historical record, Carthaginian citizenship followed a model closer to Greek exclusivity rather than Roman inclusiveness. They seem to have formed a self-perpetuating tax-exempt elite, with the local North African population subject to a significant tax tribute and forced conscription into the Carthaginian Army. It's notable on the latter point that, even at Zama, when Carthage's back was pressed to the proverbial wall, only a minority of Hannibal's army consisted of Punic Carthaginians; even at that desperate moment, a significant part of the army was comprised of Libyan levies, which much of the rest drawn from mercenaries.

We do know that Carthage's language, Punic, was a Semitic language. Punic is known to have survived as late as the 5th century AD; St. Augustine of Hippo, who was in a better position than most to know - wrote about it in the earliest years of that century. The Vandal and Islamic conquests seem to have finished it off, however. We also know that Punic's closest relative - Phoenician - was itself a close relative of Hebrew. Some Punic loan words do survive in modern Berber.

From the above, it seems reasonable to assume that the small ruling hierarchy in Carthage remained a fairly exclusive self-perpetuating elite with strong ethno-linguistic ties to what's now Lebanon (Tyre and Sidon both now being located in the latter country), but that the population of the city of the whole, and the armies of the Carthaginian Empire, were far more cosmopolitan and ethnically complex, nonetheless drawing strongly on the local North African population.

In terms of the native North African population, I discussed the origin of the Berbers in an earlier thread. Extensive modern DNA analysis has been undertaken on modern Berbers.

My point re the Berbers is that they have been around since Antiquity (Heroditus) but also in 'pre-history'...hope that clarifies...

Yes, but that in turn is a misleading point when used to counter Rambhutan's point about everyone having African ancestry to note that our ancestors almost certainly had lovely dark skins.

Modern DNA analysis strongly suggests that the Berbers arrived in North Africa fairly recently as far as the grand scheme of things is concerned. While they've undoubtedly picked up some sub-Saharan DNA along the way, one of their closest mitochondrial links is with, believe it or not, the Saami of northern Scandinavia.

While up to a third of their DNA is from groups that probably reached North Africa c.50,000 years ago (which is still a good 10,000 years after Australian Aborigines reached Australia), the majority of their mitochondrial DNA - some 50-90% - is cognate with European DNA, suggesting (particularly with the Saami connection) a relatively recent late glacial expansion from a common Western European core.

So yes, even if we take the Herodotus references as undisputed - which it isn't - the majority of Berber ancestors were a relatively recent arrival in North Africa when we take the totality of homo sapiens migratory patterns out of Africa into account.

Honestly, don't they teach anyone palaeoanthropology anymore

Anyway, as to that whole Berber / Saami thing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199377/?tool=pmcentrez

Abstract:

The sequencing of entire human mitochondrial DNAs belonging to haplogroup U reveals that this clade arose shortly after the “out of Africa” exit and rapidly radiated into numerous regionally distinct subclades. Intriguingly, the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch, aged merely ∼9,000 years. This unexpected finding not only confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum but also reveals a direct maternal link between those European hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers.

It looks like slightly faulty memory may have led me to overemphasise the closeness of the Berber-Saami genetic link, but my basic point remains sound.

So there you go - the majority of the population and army of the Carthaginian Republic (though not the oligarchical elite) were post-glacial settlers of North Africa with a shared DNA relationship to Scandinavians.

[The Archregimancy]

The territory of Carthage would not have been sown with salt, which would have left that region much better off than it ever was thereafter.

The territory of Carthage was likely not sown with salt - it isn't mentioned in any ancient sources, and isn't mentioned in any modern sources pre-dating 1930.

The story that the site of city was sown with salt was likely invented by a Cambridge academic as an attempt to draw a Biblical analogy.

Carthage was sacked, burnt, razed to the ground, and its population sold into slavery.

However, the city rapidly recovered after being refounded by Julius Caesar, and it soon became the capital of one of the most prosperous provinces of the Roman Empire, and a key supplier of grain to Rome. By 100 AD - only 50 years after its refoundation - it was already the second largest city in the western half of the Empire, with a population of half a million.

So even if that 1930 fable is true, said sowing with salt doesn't seem to have materially impacted its prosperity for very long.

[Forsher]

The territory of Carthage would not have been sown with salt, which would have left that region much better off than it ever was thereafter.

This is likely the sanest speculative statement in the entire thread.

Where do you stand on the no-alphabet stance for English?

[The Archregimancy]

This is likely the sanest speculative statement in the entire thread.

Where do you stand on the no-alphabet stance for English?

Could you clarify?

Also note that I substantially revised the post you're quoting after doublechecking the 'salting' story after having a nagging feeling I hadn't remembered the details correctly - which I hadn't.

[Forsher]

Where do you stand on the no-alphabet stance for English?

Could you clarify?

Also note that I substantially revised the post you're quoting after doublechecking the 'salting' story after having a nagging feeling I hadn't remembered the details correctly - which I hadn't.

It's a misunderstanding of what the rune system was... it's about lettering. The argument, however, is unaffected as it is now rendered as, "with a Carthaginian victory English may have never left runes."

[The Archregimancy]

Could you clarify?

Also note that I substantially revised the post you're quoting after doublechecking the 'salting' story after having a nagging feeling I hadn't remembered the details correctly - which I hadn't.

It's a misunderstanding of what the rune system was... it's about lettering. The argument, however, is unaffected as it is now rendered as, "with a Carthaginian victory English may have never left runes."

I don't think it's worth speculating about writing systems for a language that likely wouldn't even have developed the same way without a Roman Empire.

Not the answer you were looking for, I know, but there you go.